I am not as resentful as I may have been for wasting so much time on Pofo, as it has enabled me to witness perhaps the greatest internet trolls who ever lived. @hindsite.

There was mention somewhere, maybe by hindsite, where someone claimed mutations aren't passed down. that was a false statement. mutations are passed down. mutation is the random mechanism for evolution. most mutations aren't beneficial but occasionally one is and occasionally that is past down, leading to great divergence.

Mendelian style selection of genes within a particular range is also going on, but mutation is a big aspect.

Besoeker2 wrote:Palaeontologists have fossil records of creatures that no longer exist. Hard evidence. Where's the hard evidence for the Genesis global flood? There is none, not one iota. The very idea of god wanting to reverse what he created stretches credibility beyond belief.

"A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology and paleontology.[3][4] A branch of creationism known as flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred"

A study in the January 2009 issue of Quaternary Science Reviews suggests that if the flood occurred at all, it was much smaller—hardly of biblical proportions. Liviu Giosan of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and Florin Filip and Stefan Constantinescu of the University of Bucharest found evidence that Black Lake/Sea water levels rose only 5 to 10 meters around 9,400 years ago. The flood would have drowned only about 2,000 square kilometers of land (about half of Rhode Island).

Fossils used as evidence??Rather detracts from your young earth arguments. Mountains don't appear overnight.That fossils are found on mountains confirms that there have been movements in the earth's crust. I and a colleague had a project in a cement works in the Derbyshire peak district. Lovely countryside. Except for that blott on the landscape, that cement works.

When we had a bit of free time, and commissioning new plant is often hurry up and wait, we would wander round the quarry where the material was extracted. We found fossilised trilobites.

That shows at least two things. That the earth crust moved. That it predates your silly young earth notion. By about 500 million years ago.

User mini profile

ingliz wrote:It is accurate for samples up to about 62,000 years old, ten times the age of your young Earth, and good enough to prove the Bible stories wrong.

The Bible is religion, not science. Science no more proves the bible wrong than it proves literature false. That scientists are otherwise illiterate doesn't mean that Shakespeare's Hamlet is worthless, for example. It just means that Shakespeare uses the literary devices like Hamlet to tell propagate morals, via parable, allegory, and other literary devices. The Bible does something similar. Treating the Bible as a scientific explanation of phenomena doesn't make the Bible ludicrous. It makes scientists ludicrous and time wasting for attempting to stifle religion using science as a cudgel when they should be working to explain physical phenomena they cannot accurately and adequately explain. It's like the media using Joseph Nye "the science guy" to debate science when he isn't a scientist.

Darwin can muse, for example, about why a Rottweiler and a Poodle share the same genome, but have very different characteristics--even though Darwin knew next to nothing about genetics, save Georg Mendels' theories and noting that Mendel was an Augustinian Friar). However, the theory of evolution does a terrible job of explaining something like a spider spinning webs to catch and eat prey. Spiders first somehow evolve to spin both strong and sticky webs to catch prey. Why? Darwin's biggest hubris is claiming to understand the origin of species even though his book only details differences within the same species. Yet, spider silk is at least a dual use technology. Spiders use them to cover and protect their eggs. Yet, they also weave elaborate webs that are both strong and sticky in order to catch prey. Darwin cannot explain how the first spider evolved, how spider silk first evolved, why it was selected, for which trait it was first selected (e.g., protecting eggs, catching prey), and which characteristics of spider silk evolved first, if that's how they evolved. Nor does Darwin explain the intricate nature of spider webs. Yet, Darwin gets a spider named after him that spins the largest spider webs known to man using the strongest biological material known to man. This phenomenon takes a certain level of intelligence that is frankly not explained in the theory of evolution, nor in the basics of Newtonian, Einsteinian or Quantum physics. It's simply very poorly understood, and the scientific community seems to have become a collection of conceited, arrogant and condescending fools who cannot admit to the vast amount of phenomena they can not accurately describe. They did not even discover Darwin's Bark Spider (Caerostris darwini ) until 2009.

Besoaker2 wrote:I like the Samuel Clemens definition of faith.

Faith is a common trait. Where's all your money? In your pocket? What's it made of? Paper? Worthless scraps of zinc? Is most of it entrusted to people who work in a place called a "bank," people who you don't know and never met? The entire monetary and banking system runs on faith.

Besoaker2 wrote:If what is written in your bible is the literal truth you would have facts and no need for faith.Can't you see the simplicity in that?

Joe Biden chooses truth over facts. What do you think about that?

Besoaker2 wrote:Palaeontologists have fossil records of creatures that no longer exist. Hard evidence.

They don't have the actual creatures though, do they? They cannot recreate them as yet, can they? Why? Because they don't know how.

Besoaker2 wrote:The very idea of god wanting to reverse what he created stretches credibility beyond belief.

Why? Some of the inventors of nuclear weapons wish they could undo their invention.

"If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black."-- Joe Biden to DJ Charlamagne tha God

Besoaker2 wrote:Correct. Science is based on evidence. There is none for the bible.

Science cannot provide conclusive evidence nor replicate the origin or life or the origin of species either. There is only evidence for species that existed and no longer do, and evidence of species with mutated characteristics. There isn't even a good understanding of why life should want to sustain itself and procreate. Dawkins' selfish gene theory is interesting, but he implores us not to ask why the gene is selfish or to seek a scientific explanation of selfishness. Indeed most life is not deemed to be sentient; yet, we're asked to accept a metaphor of introspection and self esteem from the tiniest of cells with no evidence. In terms of discrete mathematics, it kind of makes sense; yet, it's not laid bare as physical evidence. Those of us who want a scientific explanation are not getting one. We're getting a plausible discrete explanation that has not been proven and for which there is no evidence presented; and, we're supposed to cheer Dawkins on for trashing religious people--many of whom have contributed far more to science over the centuries than Dawkins ever did.

I'm open to hearing discussions on evolution and both its strengths and weaknesses. I concur with these gentlemen that the probabilities don't work out for evolution.

We now have evidence of DNA, RNA, the structure of ribosomes, adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, etc. We can look at this from a combinatorial approach. Darwin knew nothing about transcription.

In order for life to have formed, we'd have already needed a soup of amino acids, etc. Yet, we don't have a good explanation for that either. We're expected to think of oil, natural gas, coal, etc. as "fossil fuels." Abiogenic theories of crude oil are to be ridiculed and admonished. Yet, how do we get to an origin of life unless we first have a plethora of longer chained hydrocarbons? Why would they form if entropy is increasing?

"If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black."-- Joe Biden to DJ Charlamagne tha God

The purpose of Genesis 2:18–25 is not to give another account of creation but to show that there was no kinship whatsoever between Adam and the animals. None was like him, and so none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. Why not? Because Adam had not evolved from them, but was ‘a living soul’ whom God had created ‘in His own image’ (Genesis 2:7 and 1:27). This means (among other things) that God created Adam to be a person whom He could address, and who could respond to and interact with Himself. Here, as in many other places, the plain statements of the Bible confront and contradict the notion of human evolution.

Hindsite wrote:The purpose of Genesis 2:18–25 is not to give another account of creation but to show that there was no kinship whatsoever between Adam and the animals. None was like him, and so none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. Why not? Because Adam had not evolved from them, but was ‘a living soul’ whom God had created ‘in His own image’ (Genesis 2:7 and 1:27). This means (among other things) that God created Adam to be a person whom He could address, and who could respond to and interact with Himself. Here, as in many other places, the plain statements of the Bible confront and contradict the notion of human evolution.